Description
The paper advances our understanding of the relationship between international law and deterrence theory by asking: how do states employ legal strategies as tools of coercion in an increasingly assertive geopolitical environment? This paper examines how Russia uses legal narratives as coercive signals within its deterrence strategy and explores the strategic functions these narratives perform. It conceptualizes these practices as lawfare: the strategic mobilization of legal frameworks to achieve objectives that extend beyond formal legal compliance. The analysis employs a framework of ritual transgression. International law relies on ritualized practices—formalism, traditionalism, symbolism, rule-governance—to reconcile its aspiration to permanence with the indeterminacy of a decentralized system dependent on states’ sovereign discretion. Lawfare derives its political force by strategically transgressing these rituals without rejecting law’s authority outright. These transgressions disrupt expectations of order and legitimacy while still invoking legal frameworks, enabling actors to send credible signals about their intent, resolve and escalation readiness. The conceptual argument is illustrated by selected cases of Russian naval and grey-zone maritime activities in the Baltic Sea and the Arctic.
